enter the webinar id (841)656-0323. this is being broadcast and streamed across the bottom of the screen if you are watching the broadcast. to block your phone number when calling dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for your item to be

called and dial star nine equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in and have three minutes. you will get a 30 second warning. there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on the internet. it is very important that you reduce or turnoff the volume or there is interference with the meeting. if the participants on zoom need disability accommodation you can make request in chat function to the legal assistant or send an e-mail to board of appeals. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. now we will swear and affirm all of those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without an oath pursuant to the rights under the nine ordinance. if you intend to test drive the proceedings and wish to give

testimony raise your right hand and say i do. do you swear or affirm your testimony will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. if you are a participant abnot t speaking put your speaker on mute. if you are here for apple 21-010 concerning the notice of violation at 2455 jackson this is the item that is rescheduled to may 5, 2021. if you are here for that matter it will be heard in two weeks at 5:00. you can get information on the website how to access that meeting. now we are moving on to item 1. this is general public comment. an opportunity for anyone to speak on a matter within the

board jurisdiction not on the calendar. any member of the public wishing to speak on an item not on the calendar. please raise your hand. okay. i don't see anybody. we are going to move on to item 2. election of the office of vice president. the vice president resigned. we need to fill that position. any members of the board to nominate a colleague or themselves for office of vice president? i see two hands raised. >> commissioner lazarus had her hand up first. >> i would like to nominate commissioner swig as the next vice president. >> okay. >> since i don't get to make that i will second the motion. >> okay. is there any public comment on this motion? please raise your hand.

okay. i don't see any public comment. let me check. commissioner swig are you willing to serve as vice president? >> i would be pleased and honored to serve. thank you. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to elect commissioner swig as vice president. president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> okay. that motion carries 4-0. congratulations. >> he has to play the drums behind him. >> okay. we are now moving on. >> thank you very much. i appreciate it very much. >> item 3 commissioner comments and questions. we don't have any. we will move to item 4. adoption of the minutes.

before you for discussion are the minutes of the april 14, 2021 meeting. >> motion to accept. >> is there any public comment on the motion to adopt those minutes? seeing none that motion commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion carries. 4-0. the minutes are adopted. >> the attorney for the appellant informed me she is not asking for continuance. >> thank you. we are going to move on to item 5. appeal number 21-015.

noel frelicot. at 24/7 2 vallejo street appeals of an alteration permit. kitchen and bath remodel. remove one set of convenience stairs, fully infill small remainder of light well by connecting pre-existing firewalls. we will hear from the appellant first. i believe ms. christ is here. welcome. we can't hear you. >> thank you. i am hoping i have capability to share screens. i am going to try to do that. >> i won't start the time until you get your screen up.

good evening, i am an attorney at hansen and bridgett here today on behalf of noel frelicot. they reside at 2466 vallejo street next door to the permit holder. they are also online this evening. i want to first provide a brief overview of the properties. they are side-by-side buildings. the applicant's property is on the left. the building is on the right. there is a shared light well between them on the second and third floors. you can see it here in this aerial. it is shown here between the two buildings. it is right here.

the permit is for internal remodel. our appeal is focused on the infilling of the shared light well between the buildings. i want to point out the plans that were included with the applicant's brief are from a 2017 believe permit to legalize the rear addition. they are not relevant to the permit before you. plans for the permit at issue we received a copy yesterday. those show on sheet a-1 as well the shared light well between the two buildings. the issue is just procedural because the proposed infill faces our client's light well with windows. section 311 notification should have been given to our clients. it is not only shared light well. there are three windows facing the proposed infill.

not blank wall and that is not shown on the plans submitted for this permit. the rules are clear that section 311 notification is required for any building permit that increases exterior dimensions of the building. bulletin four provides exception for infilling windows. that exception states if the plans number two accompanying photos clearly establish it is against a blank wall at the property line and not havessible from -- visible from outside it may be approved. default is provide notice. to bypass the plans have to show infill against the blank

neighboring wall not havessible from off-site location. here the plans don't show the neighboring wall facing the infill area and the fact it has windows facing it. of course, because there are windows it is visible from off-site from our clients' property. while staff may have considered the proposed wall would have minimal effect as practical matter, as legal matter the noticing was still required. this is the sheet that shows our clients' building. a5. that doesn't really show. it says opening to neighbor but doesn't show there is windows on the wall on the other side of that. we understand because there is an existing deck above and wall

partial wall that comes down filling in the opening may not have significant impact on our clients' light and air, but nonetheless that determination can't be made in order to disregard the noticing requirement. here our clients perceive an impact on light and air. they are entitled to have an opportunity to evaluate what those impacts might be and provide input. they were deprived of that opportunity. to the picture that shows the actual light well area. they also have concerns about access to the area and a drain that is located in their light well. on the left is our clients' property. on the right is the permit holders' property. this is the deck above unpermitted and wall unpermitted. to some extent infilling this

wall we still would perceive an impact in terms of light and air to these windows but certainly to the extent it is relying on these two other components. one significant piece of information not available to the planner is the fact those components are not permitted. just this week we obtained preliminary drawings that labeled deck and wall unpermitted and our clients present tonight were advised by the tenant of that unit he built the deck and wall in the 1990s without a permit. i believe he is online and able to confirm that. our clients who purchased the property in 1994 were not aware they were not permitted until this week. taking that into consideration if this goes forward it would allow incremental filling of the

large light well shared with the neighboring property owner without any notice or opportunity to consider things like design modifications to minimize impacts or otherwise confirm that it would be consistent with residential design guidelines. that is the substance of the procedural issue is 311 noticing. that procedure allows some evaluation of the potential impacts. there is a residential design guideline that clearly states one guideline is to provide shared light wells to provide more light to the properties. all of those components would be needed to fill in the light well. our request tonight is simply the city follow proper procedures, issue 311 notice for the permit, and allow our clients an opportunity to take closer look. we believe the permit to infill

the light well was erroneously issued without complete information. we would respectfully grant you grant the minimum allow the period and possibly -- >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> i see a hand raised as attendee. we are not on public comment. we will get there after we hear from the permit holder and the department. we will now hear from the permit holder, ms. hu. >> welcome. >> hello. i am evelyn hu and this is my husband. we are the recent owners of 24/7 2 vallejo street. we purchased the property two months ago.

there is a whole history of issues of the building currently cleaned up. we are still in the process of cleaning up some of those things. i wanted to address a couple of things that just came up an hour before this hearing. she alluded to a set of plans that referred to the light well area specifically the deck and the stairs as unpermitted. i had a conversation with sanchez an hour ago where i was given notice of this. i just called my drafter. it appears there was a plan set prepared for conversation with our tenant referring to the fact that the deck that he enjoys currently that i believe he

enjoys by himself exclusively we are permitting to be a private deck for him. the landlord tenant attorney wanted to specify between a space that did not be long to the tenanted before to a space that was permitted to him. this language of permitted not permitted refers to the top floor of the community the tenant lived this is now inclusive and fully permitted to include that deck space as private and exclusive use. now the thing that is actually concerns is this was not a submitted plan set for the city permitting purposes. not a version that was superseded. it was there for visualization purposes. it never happened because he is

not wanting to talk to us. that conversation has not happened. that was located in a drawer in our unit on the ground floor which is locked. if the tenant -- if the appellant is in possession of that plan set that would mean they broke into our unit and stole the plan set. i find that extremely distressing and it fits within the pattern of behavior that we have seen and the fact that i am not sure when they broke in and stole the plan set. we are just finding out about it an hour before the hearing. >> could you pause time for a second. i want to make a comment you have seven minutes to present your days. however you present your days is

your choice. at this point you are using a lot of your time. we have to make a decision off what is represented this evening. i want to give you that guidance before you continue. >> so let's move forward with our presentation. this is the visualization of the permitted scope. the area in contest right now is the install of the light well this 6-foot tall 10-foot wide area a gap in the firewall. there is a firewall on the third floor and on the ground floor. we are connecting those disjointed firewalls to have a continuous firewall. before i leave that page the resulting outcome on that wall would be a window that is fire

rated and obviously the wall itself would be a firewall. this is a visualization of the current condition in the light well. you can see up here this is the third floor firewall and the gap. on this picture from the ground floor to second floor you can see the gap and part of the second floor has the firewall and the firewall down below. you have seen the photo. this is to show you the relative sizes of our properties. the appellant is on the fourth floor not impacted by any light whatsoever. on top of that our building, his building is four stories tall. the southern wall of his light well is actually blockage of light to his own light well because the sun is from the south. the sun in the picture is directly hitting this front portion of his property and

passing a shadow to his light well. our property has never produced light for his property. most of the light in this gap is coming from the appellants property. this is to show you the sunlight. look at this line right here it shows where the sun is coming in and the rest is shadows. that is the four-story structure, the wall for the light well on the southern border of the lit well. similar kind of representations of the sunlight. you can see it only hits the northern part of the top part of his light well and the rest is shadows. in the 2017 approved plans he the prior owner represented the light well condition as fully infilled. there was a 311 notification. this is to show the continuous firewall across all three

stories. the 311 notification did not receive any request for discretionary review and there were no complaints lodged on the deck alleged to be unpermitted nor the entire infill condition of the light well. the appellant's residence is on the fourth floor and this looks down to the light well. appellant has issues with histic light well, we are trying to guard against. there is a building code that specifies the distance of set back in a light well that is unprotected. it needs to be 5 feet. sorry 5 feet and then protected with fire assembly. that is not the case. additionally they have frosted windows which diminish the

sunlight to their own windows. this is a log of our attempts to dialogue with the appellant. to this day we don't understand what their concern is. the tenant has also comfort with an extortion letter for $2.5 million buyout of tenancy which we do not wish to entertain. we wish to keep them as a tenant. >> that is time. >> you will have three minutes in rebuttal. thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you. good evening. congratulations to vice president swig on his elevation to that position. i look forward to working with you in your new role. the subject property 24/7 2 vallejo is rh-2 zoning. only case on the agenda tonight so it is easy one for the board. it is unique in the scope of

work. we don't often see a shared light well filled in with the property line firewall which the permit holder's property has. when we reviewed this application to do work in the light well to add that office area on the second level, we were evaluating it on infilling that 6 by 10 opening. it was more like window opening getting filled in rather than new mask in that area. any impact on light and air to the appellants' property is created by the existing firewall. reswying this we had the assumption that existing firewall and deck were legal. no reason to believe otherwise. looking back on aerial photos, our aerial photo deposit tore regoes to 20002.

i don't see any separate permits for the work in the light well. it does from the photos appear to have been there for quite some time. what is raised now by the appellant in their brief it was unpermitted. we saw that. we didn't have evidence that it was unpermitted. aerial photos showed it more recently today we received a copy of these plans that have it labeled as unpermitted deck. i asked the property owner about that and they had no willing of that. no -- no knowledge of that. they have since contacted the architect and informed them such plans were made and i understand from their testimony that they were locked in the drawer down stairs. be that as it may, it comes down

to if that deck and firewall are illegal, then that needs to be legalized. that would definitely require neighborhood notification. we would also likely require that be set back about three feet from the shared property line. the permit holders property has a large light well, more than a light well, a light court given the large dimensions. they could fill that in under residential design guidelines. we may ask it be set back three feet to match the depth of the appellants property. the reason we didn't ask for it in this case is because of the existing wall that was there on the property line. we were just looking at it as infill of the 6 by 10 opening. that is where we are. i think a lot of this is new information that came up today.

i don't know that we haven't definitely reviewed the legality of it. it is newer information. we may hear more in public comment about the legality of the deck. if the deck is illegal then this needs legalization, notice and probably revision to set back from the side property line. with that i can be available for questions and we will learn more i think during the future comments here. >> thank you. we have a question from vice president swig and then president honda. >> scott, if the planning department doesn't know whether it has been permitted or not, and you have photos that are two decades old, approximately, that

feature that configuration, how do you go about determining the truth? >> the assumption is that it is legal. i think we may need to hear from deputy director for the configuration that is there now. could it have been approvable. we will hear from one of the tenants they built it without permit. there are no permits. in the history there is reroofing permit in 1991. then there is a permit to legalize work in 2016 which is subject to that neighborhood notice referred to. then another kitchen and bath remodel permit for the lower unit. if they say they built it in the 1990s there is no permit evidence of that. we may find it is not legal. generally with the legality of

structures we rely on d.b.i. for making those determinations. i think we will hear during public comment. >> right now if it was an hour ago and we were having this conversation and you had not determined there had been no mention of this being ill legal, you would be of the opinion that this is a legally properly issued permit and everything is just fine, but somebody is sending messages on the screen. i would rather they don't do that. >> please don't as i said before you cannot use the chat function to provide opinion or facts. you will have time to speak during public comment. i don't want to remove you. please don't do that again.

thank you. >> thanks very much. let me go back again. if it was an hour ago and you hadn't received this, this would be a properly issued permit. right now that new information fact offings muddies the water. -- fact or if it is fiction muddies the water. we were going to postpone the hearing today. if we can't come up with definite information and you can't find permit history right at the tip of your fingertips, should we move to do anything with this today? >> well, i think that there is a lot of other work on this permit. i think foundation work. i think we can hear from the parties, but it is conceivable the board could remove any work

in the light well from the scope of the permit and allow other work to continue. that is a possibility. i think we need to hear from deputy director duffy and also from members of the public about comments on the legality of the deck. i did see the message in the chat related to the fire well and light well which is being removed already as part of this. deputy director duffy could speak to that if it is a concern of anyone. >> final question. you are always very impressive when you are able as you did a couple weeks ago to pull out a photo from 1492. from a long time ago on many, many properties. what conditions looked like not

20 years ago but 40, 50, 60 years ago. do you have the ability to do that if we require further information as to whether this deck was regional or not? >> yes, i can pull it up. it is a aerial photo from 1938. i did review that already. it seems there is probably no firewall there. it is inconclusive given the shadows on the building. i can show that to the board on rebuttal so you can see what that looks like. >> thank you for your time. >> president honda. >> rick asked primary question i wanted. i have another question. as the permit holder was showing photos that i didn't see in the brief, it looked like her question regarding 5 feet away

for windows. do those need fire rated. it looked like property line windows. >> i think most windows are off the property line. angled to or within three feet of the property line. i would refer to mr. duffy for that. >> did you notice property line windows? >> i don't think they are property line windows, i did not notice that. >> i will after the permit holder is done i will ask her t reshow those. >> we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners. congratulations to commissioner swig on vice-presidency, well-done. just on this building permit. kitchen and bath remodel remove one set of convenience stairs, fully infill small remainder of light well by connecting

pre-existing firewalls. it was signed on the 30th of december 2020, issued on february 22, 2021. it was reviewed by planning and building and meckcan can cal plan check and the permit issued and suspended. the voting permit from building code point of view i didn't see anything untoward about it on the initial review. we do check for building code compliance on these. as we see them, obviously, with the issues brought up with legality of the deck and questions about property line windows, firewall, all of that stuff is building code related. i will touch on the deck and issue that has come up lately. as you all know and we speak about it every week we have a

lot of buildings in san francisco where in a light well previous owners got along great, work done, permits done. it existed for many years. they are difficult when they arrive at our door and we have to look at the permits. we check the microphone and ask for records. they are hard sometimes to determine the legality or what the conditions are. it looked from the photographs that they had been there a long time. it is unfortunate for a new property owner but it is a fact of life. when new owners come in and don't get along. a neighbor brings these up. d.b.i. looks into it. i don't know if we would issue a violation. we might ask the property owner

to provide records and make a determination. we work with colleagues in planning on these things as well. the window issue. it is not usual in believes of this age. those would be allowed to remain if someone doesn't change the size of them. we do see this as well. they are not -- we wouldn't require because of this work being done on 24/7 2 that someone on the neighbor's side would have to do the windows. [indiscernable] i am not sure. you shouldn't depend on someone else's light well. your light well should be sufficient. they are going to lose some

light because the light well infill if permitted would definitely darken their light well. my understanding in reading of the code over the years is that your light well is your light well and that should pro are ride you -- provide you with light and ventilation. i am available for any questions from the commissioners. >> vice president swig has a question. thank you. >> same question, mr. duffy. up until an hour ago there wasn't this extra conversation about legal versus illegal. without this conversation and this knowledge dropped in our laps a few moments ago, would you see any problem with this permit in the way it was issued?

>> when a permit is presented we look at it how it was presented. if new information comes in and this could arrive with us tomorrow morning in the form of a complaint. if we decided planning or building could look at this and say you got a permit on the deck, now we got a complaint the deck is illegal. we might ask that and look further and see if the deck is something that was built without a permit. i do think we are going to hear from somebody here. i think we heard already they built the deck without a permit. that statement alone is sometimes we have a historic photograph. [indiscernable] it looks like at one point it was filled in. we could look at it differently,

yes, based on new information that was received. it is very unfortunate. it didn't seem like it just cage up in the last -- came up in the last hour which is a little bizarre. we could deal with it if the permit went ahead we could deal with it as part of the complaint in a week's time. >> would it be your recommendation that we should take action tonight or would you like to do further research on this element of the permit or barring that should we heed mr. sanchez's suggestion we not stop this and move the rest of the permit forward and by fir bifurcatethis from the permit.

>> mr. sanchez is correct or not. there seems to be work that the people want to get done. i don't think anyone has a problem with that. with the deck issue here i might be better prepared to take rebuttal on that. you wouldn't want to kill the project if this just come up an hour ago. if they can get other work done, i would be in favor with that. i just said the light wells are very difficult because, you know, this is the planning department process. i thought everybody had to get a letter from the neighbor to say it was okay. there are different interpretations. if that is the case if we did go back to say we are going through a different process from the people on the other side

appealing you would wonder if it would ever get done. they may not agree to that, you know. the notification period would be opened up and might change things. i think allowing someone to work is a good idea. >> thank you for your time. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment now. what did you say, president honda? >> i said thank you, deputy director. >> thank you. we are moving to public comment. i see one hand raised. the person who has the number 14152. i don't see the rest. you can go ahead. >> i am eugene anthony the resident on the top floor that seems to be the culprit in all of this. i have been there since 1988. my cousins and my aunt owned the house. it was a family residence.

i was one of the members of the family residing there for the last 33 years. we built the terrace upstairs without a permit. the walls that everyone refers to as firewalls do not exist. they are two by fours cedar with siding on them on both sides, i believe, that does not constitute a one hour firewall. i don't know what other firewalls they are talking about in the area. there is a garbage room down stairs under the staircase but i put siding on to not look at the garbage cans. i don't think that is a one or two hour firewall. that is the set of circumstances. i am the only living relative left who can attest to the building. it was done without a permit that we just wanted to do something to make me happy. that is it.

>> president honda has a question. >> my question is so were you the seller in this transaction? >> no. >> you were not the seller. >> no, no. it was inherited by my cousin's two boys and her granddaughter was executor in the whole thing. >> that was my question. >> thank you. we will hear from zack ar m.o.u. r. please go ahead. >> zack armor. >> hi. i would like to take public comment. i am the former tenant. i moved into the place back in

2017. i would like to comment on the landlord. the renovation that she does. in 2017 me and my friends. [indiscernable] newly renovated, beautiful. with the most modern gadgets. it was a focal point of gatherings. they were a thing. the family was a great experience. she responded to me very quickly. white a pleasant experience. gorgeous renovated place. if i wasn't moving to new york soon i would be living there for years to come. i would like to say my guests would comment on that as well. this is a quick comment and i hope you deny the appeal and allow her to continue to remodel as i am sure it will turn-out

great. >> any other public comment? i see ms. denise clancy. please go ahead. >> i speak on behalf of the permit holders. we hope that you deny the appeal. we live on green street just one block away from vallejo. i can see their property from our property. when we found they were moving to the neighborhood we were very excited. i walk my dog all of the time and walk by their property all of the time, from the neighborhood resident i can't imagine that the type of construction they were doing

would involve this type of malaise and hope that the board would deny this. i am an attorney myself as is my husband. it seems clear from listening to mr. sanchez and the others absent this last minute surprise an hour before the hearing this would have been permitted to go forward. i find it disturbing and i know this is very reasonable commission. i find it quite disturbing an ongoing campaign includes throwing a tornado into the hearing right before it goes because it seems to violate all forms of due process for them. in the absence of denial of the appeal, i would hope that mr. sanchez's suggestion they could continue with construction and then delay resolution of the

firewall issue would be adopted. they are a lovely family with young children. i have a 6-year-old. we would love them in the neighborhood. >> thank you. anyone else here for public comment? please raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised. we will move to rebuttal. ms. crisp, you have three minutes. >> are you there in. >> hi. i just have a couple of points i would like to make. first on the timing of the information regarding the illinois legality or unpermitted nature of the deck. that is an issue that they raise

understand the appeal brief filed a couple weeks ago. this was not just raised an hour ago. it is an issue that came up an hour ago are copies of drawings that seem to indicate they were unpermitted and information from the tenant who constructed the deck. this is not some sort of intentional sabotaging. our office got involved very recently. we worked as quickly as we could to try to get the plans. we were not able to do that. the permit holder kindly sent them over yesterday afternoon on my request. i appreciate that. the illegal deck is not an issue that just came up an hour ago. some evidence of that is what we received earlier today. second point is the 2017 permit

that the permit holder shared. again, that permit really is not relevant to this permit. it clearly shows the scope of work limited to the rear addition. to the extent that anything else is depicted on that plan, the permit didn't have the effect of legalizing any of that. my final point is that they have no issue with the rest of the project they would support the permit without the work in the infill area. the concern is the shared light well and i know that there is the relationship hasn't gotten off on the best foot, and the frelicots are elderly and live therant don't have a personal van debt take and didn't break

into property and steal plans. you know, i feel like i need to speak to that. it is just not a fair depiction of their character. i didn't want to have to address it, but to some extent i feel i have to address it. they should be given the benefit of the doubt. they are only concerned about the light well and have no issue with the rest of the permit issuing. they want to understand these issues better and have their light well. >> thank you. we have a president honda has a question. >> the question as you brought up. as you saw the permit holder was quite distressed these plans stolen showed up. how did you acquire them? >> i believe and the frelicots are on the line and my understanding these were preliminary plans the tenant had

possession of and those were transmitted to me by e-mail this afternoon. >> e-mail from? >> from our client, from the frelicots. >> are they online? are they here. >> they are. >> i will ask them a question. how did you acquire those plans? you are on mute right now. >> the tenant. >> your tent or the neighbor. >> no the neighbor. >> thank you very much. >> you are welcome. >> is the tenant still online? >> yes, he is here. >> i have a question for you. how did you acquire those plans?

as you saw the permit holder says they were in a locked drawer? >> i have no idea what she is talking about. she showed me her drawings when she first came to the property, and i do this for a living. i have an interior design firm. i was able to sort of say rebuild them as best i possibly could. that is all i can tell you. i don't know what she is talking about. i don't know what they are doing down stairs. my laundry room. >> the question is you did not supply the original plans. >> no, no, no. >> from your memory. >> correct. >> not original plans. >> no, i have no idea about locked cases. >> that is all interpretation from you, correct, sir?

>> yes. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> we will hear from the permit holder ms. hu. >> this is her husband. i think what you just heard from the tenant is that he magically recreated the plans from memory. those plans. [indiscernable] they he were in a locked drawer in a unit not his. this court can make a decision about whether he created from memory or obtained plans from an empty unit illegally. as far as his testimony that he illegally built the unit. we have a long correspondence with him during the buyout where he insisted that deck was legal and he was insisting on that during the course that he be allowed to retain access to the

deck. now today he comes back to the committee in support of the claim and saying, no, he built them and he as the tenant built that deck illegally. i think that is the credibility of his testimony. as far as 311 notification. the reason we are reluctant. normally we would be happy. because of the behavior. we have photographic evidence and happy to get the contractor to testify. we have photos. we can provide to the board. this is the level of harassment which has resulted in us having to obtain temporary restraining order granted against the frelicots. we don't want to go through 311.

we believe they are prejudice against us to renovate. as their lawyer said they are relying on technicality that they weren't given technical notice despite they are living with the deck for 20 or so years. they have been living here for 20 years. new owner comes in, hostile to the new owner. now they are insisting on sort of having 311 notification as a way to get the construction. we have tried to engage with them. they are unresponsive. i would finally ask the board it is a technicality as to whether this deck was permitted. it has been there 20 years at least. they never complained.

the building department can't figure it out. we as good faith purchasers were told originally it was permitted. now there is evidence all over the place. you should focus on practicality. this is not something that would actually -- >> that is your time. thank you. >> we do center a few questions from president honda and commissioner lazarus. >> she had her hand up first. >> thank you. i just want to ask mr. lu or ms wu the purpose is to complete the firewall? is that the reason for it? >> correct. >> a couple reasons. one is we would like to have a full vertical continuous firewall because at the same time that we do not want to turn

this into a discussion or bring down the neighbor, there are significant issues with the fire protection in the light well. the light well is actually set three feet seven inches. it is required five foot set back with sprinklers and fire rated windows. in addition there is a certain density of windows they exceed. we don't want to bring them down. this is never but we want to protect our property the duplex. you saw the magnitude. >> thank you. >> president honda. >> couple questions. one, you recently purchased the property, correct? >> yes, correct.

>> this is a full disclosure state. when you purchased the property did they disclose that work was done unpermitted. >> no, not at all. >> the sellers sold that property to you and did not disclose it was unpermitted and they were living in the property? >> the seller passed away from cancer. our understanding she never really lived at the building. eugene anthony the tenant was the caretaker for the property. he did the horizontal addition. he most likely built that deck. i don't know. >> was it a trust or probate sale? >> yes. >> trust or probate? >> trust sale. >> trustees didn't live on the property correct. >> correct. >> we were represented that the

deck was legal. that was the tenant's position until this hearing. you heard from the lawyer he came forward the testimony it is not legal. as of a day ago it was a legal deck. >> unfortunately we have one case and it was easy. now it is not easy night. more than likely because of the information that was thrown at the last minute there will be aa continuance. for me it goes to integrity of the testimony. you heard that they received those plans from the tenant. tenant did this from memory recall. he is a professional. did you get an opportunity to look at the plans submitted?

>> are you on moot? >> the plans you said in the locked drawer. did you get to review the once submitted? >> yes. >> are they the exact plans? >> they are the exact plans. i apologize. he called an hour before the hearing. they are the exact plans. >> early draft. we had a full understanding of the situation. >> okay. >> during our negotiations. >> i get it. unfortunately we are the board that hears that neighbors are not going to be friends for quite some time. i was asking a question. it may or may not be pertinent but it goes to integrity of the testimony. thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department.

>> thank you. in terms of the plans that were provided today, i received a photo of plans. it seems someone had seen the plans and taken photos and shared them. i am confused by the testimony of the member of the public tenant who said they just from memory and it wasn't clear what they did from memory other than they are a professional. not that he recreated the plans. i don't know why anyone would go that that level of extent. i can share with the board the plans. i will put them on the overhead here. we are not in city hall. these are the plans. this is not something that i think someone would just put together one day. these are plans that someone

took a picture of. you can zoom out. it looks like maybe it was if we can identify whose tablecloth that may be we know where this was taken. it seems this is a photo taken somewhere and sent along. it is the same scope of work that is being proposed currently and this is where it says the unpermitted deck. this is a concern to us because we know the appellant raised this issue in their brief. we didn't have any supporting evidence of that. i have been in communication with the permit holder. they said maybe that the tenant would say they built it but there was otherwise no evidence of it being unpermitted. that is why i was surprised there were plans prepared by the property owner that show unpermitted light well. when i asked about that toed

they said, no, they are not aware of plans that show this but there are plans in the lock box. i can only report to the board what i am aware of. i am telling you everything i am aware of. it is unfortunate in this case that is complicated. maybe i could provide two orbits of information for the board. there is questions about property line windows. it looks like there are two windows on the permit holder's property adjacent to the light well. they appear on one of the sheets but not both of the sheets. second and third floors. also i have the 1938 aerial photo if the board is interested. it sounds like everyone will agree it was built in 1990s or late 1980s by the current

tenant. i am available for questions. >> vice president swig. >> show us, please, the 1938 photo and that is not my question. can you give us, can you orient us? >> it brings me joy to share the photos. this the one of the best inventions our staff put together. on the right appellants property with the light well. you can see to the left the permit holder's property. large light well square. you can see the firewall, that light line between the two properties. you can see the shade structure overhead. going back to 1938 aerial photo, this is where i am saying with shadows and resolution it is

hard to tell if there is anything in the area. if there had been a firewall up to the roof it would have at least shown as white line in that area but it looks like there is probably some shade structure here which is where the door is into that light well. there are stairs that go to the ground level, this doesn't, you know, indicate to me there is a deck in that area. that is the best that we have on that. >> no permit history that indicates prior to 2002 there were any other permits issued for something that might impact that area? >> no, a permit from 1991, no other permit for work in that area. >> there was a claim and this may be a joe duffy question as opposed to yourself.

you are referring to a firewall. there was mention in testimony that that is not a firewall that is plywood. if we moved forward and approved this permit and i am not saying we are. if we did because you have already told us it would be otherwise legal, wouldn't that show up -- wouldn't d.b.i. or somebody find out in the process of construction that was not a firewall and would that not trigger an nov? >> that would be for deputy director duffy to answer. >> thank you. >> now we will hear commissioner lazarus. >> thank you. this is more of a legal question. if you don't want to answer it that is fine. maybe based on your experience with these things. we seem to have an admission of somebody having built something

without a permit. whose responsibility is it then to fix that? >> it would be the property owner's responsibility for any work on the property. department of building inspection determines that the structure is not permitted then they could require the property owner to obtain a permit to legalize that work. it is the responsibility of the property owner ultimately to make sure the property is code compliant. >> second question. this may reveal my ignore ranges about the structure. if the issue seems to be around the illegal deck, is it possible to do this project and subsequently deal with the deck or does that interfere with the building of the extended firewall? >> i mean i think it is hard for

me to understand what the real concern is here as well. i think that the issue seems to be the neighbor and maybe now they have more information about the firewall and deck that are there now that they don't like it. certainly the property owner wouldn't be obligated to legalize it. they could remove the deck for the third floor and go about some other project at their level, second level where the office is. we would need to review whatever proposal they were to come up with. as we reviewed this we found this to be code compliant and ditch require notice based -- didn't require notice based on the information. now there are new questions calling into question our decision on the permit. >> from a structural point of view. am i clear if we approved the

permit can you deal separately with the deck? >> the deck is the roof of the room underneath. i don't know exactly what their construction plans are there. i doubt they are going to retain the existing deck. i think they will remove it and replace it with a new roof. that is the roof of the office below it. they can address better the property owner can better address their methods for the construction. maybe even the firewall will come down and get rebuilt. i don't know if they have more details to share on how they will construct the project. the deck is right above the room below. they are infilling the room for the office on the second floor. the roof of that is the deck.

it is hard too separate the two. >> thank you. >> president honda. >> we are way deep in the weeds in this, to be honest. they are infilling that light well and then they were retaining the deck, is that correct? >> the plans show the deck will be retained in the new project. at the end of the day a deck for the third floor unit and there will be the room below. that is the end results. >> it was mentioned earlier there is previous permits and there was previous. >> construction, yes. >> i believe it was stated that the tenant also did illegal construction at the rear of the property. that was found and abatement was

started under the previous ownership. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the department of building inspections. >> commissioners, d.b.i. i just the more you get into these cases the uglier they get. it is unfortunate when we deal with older buildings in the city of san francisco and all of the buildings and i talk about that. this is obviously sometimes you can live your life and nothing is never said about your building. unfortunately in this case we have neighbors that brought up issues. the problem is for the property owners having the date with this. you get into the mix d.b.i. and planning looking at records and can't find anything. we don't have anything in our

system. we are not going to get an answer or he wills we get the answer there was no permit. what do we do? you know, it is a case-by-case basis. you are not going to run a notice of violation right away. this was 30 years ago. i thought we were going to hear that. the concern there was a deck built at some point not designed by a structural engineer and architect. that is great. you know if you were building that deck today and come in with the permit for new deck because it is so close to the property line it would require a foundation at the ground level and 1r firewall continuous to the level of the deck probably to the roof level. that wall is for your foundation you can easily they are made out of 3 by four studs.

you are putting sheetrock on either side and building paper and siding the whole way up. the point of structure, to be honest. that is what you are building today. like i said at the start we know sitting here from week to weak people bring up issues all of the time, a fence, window or some appendage on the building that may have got built in the '70s, 80s or 90s without a permit. what do you do? this is unfortunate situation. maybe they need to rethink the infill of the light well. i printed the plans on my desk. i didn't cedi tail for the -- didn't see any detail for infill. as the permit is sharoned. the only part 1r is the middle

infill. the rest would remain noncomplaint. it seems there is new information. i am available for questions. i could talk all night. the permit holder brought up something about the other building not right sprinklers. >> that is your time. thank you. >> please finish. >> i will over rule and let you finish. >> it is good you stop me. the other building, those again these buildings are 100 years old. i appreciate scott putting up the 1930 photograph. when those buildings were built, i see even the house i live in like this. at one time everybody was open to each other. the light wells were open. two stairs going downsides by side in both buildings. you could have jumped to your

neighbors. as the years go on people put up walls, plastic sheeting over them, they don't want water coming in. 100 years ago the water and rain came in. that is the way they were built. that is why they are floor drains. over the years this is more install issue. it is really unfortunate. it is something the owners have to deal with. one way or the other tonight or through a complaint at d.b.i. we will deal with. >> questions from all of the commissioners for you. >> thank you. we will hear from vice president swig. >> i want to take a chapter out of commissioner lazarus' song book and state to the task at hand which is the filling in of

the light well. this is not about a deck. this is about filling in the light well as well as the other elements of the permit which are not under question at the moment. mr. duffy, if this board approves this permit tonight and the construction began and you sent folks out to inspect the light well portion of the permit and they discovered the site as it is today or they stumble upon something else and you said something that is really important that was brought up as something that it was unacceptable. you just accepted it which is i think you said that the firewall above and the firewall below are

accepted as noncompliant. did you say that? >> what you meant was that if you were going to inspect that if this project was approved, if the work doesn't show you are upgrading those, you are probably going to be okay with it. that is not part of what was approved. from what i am reading i don't say they are demolishing the existing wall and rebuilding from ground up. this looks like 6 by 10. that is what they are talking about a partial firewall less than 10 by 6 feet. the inspector might bring it up, you know, you can't make them rebuild it again if you are looking at an approved permit. >> i will cut you off. i think you answered my question. really what we are dealing with the an inspector went there yes

or no, if inspector went there to in that infill wall which is the subject of this permit, the inspector would say construction on assuming it was built right, the insulation of this new firewall as infill is appropriate and legal and we notice that above and below are noncompliant period. no notice of violation, no nothing, correct, yes or no? >> you said noncompliant. nonconforms is the word. you have a lot of nonconforming. you have looking at something that is existing already approved by the inspector. you might look at other structural issues to say i don't like the look of this. get the architect and revisit this. it is a possibility we would

bring it up. because 90% of that wall is nonconforming you are not going to make them knock it all down. you could. depends on the condition of the wall. we are not going to let something go that looks unsafe. we didn't hear that tonight. if the wall above and the wall below are in good structural condition and no dry rot or failure that is evidence to the inspector he is going to look at the new infill and say this is fine and notice that the two other walls are nonconforming. the fact that there is an illegal deck on the top has nothing to do with this permit in this case. >> it all depends. again, if i go out there and i am inspector talking about my own personal experience. you are looking at a deck.

if i saw the joints under sized you are going to ask that question, you are the inspector. it could come up in the inspection. >> but the portion of that portion which is the infill portion of the wall would be approved and the inspector might say i am approving this portion of the construction and by the way have you ever heard the term nov? if you haven't i am going to introduce you because i noticed there is an illegal deck that might be illegal. should expect a notice for you to take action on that deck. that would be separate from -- this is where i am going -- separate from what we hear tonight. is it okay to do that infill? >> well, it is going to create a room that wasn't there before. i am looking at the drawings.

there are questions about the structural detail on the drawings. not partial infill. this is a question for the permit holder. it is portrayed as partial infull. the drawings show enough infill. i don't know enough forecast if they are intending to rebuild the wall the whole way and what is going to support the whole new room there. i am not seeing the roof detail on the plans. there are definitely questions about the drawings. >> can we deviate and digress from mr. duffy and ask mr. duffy's question of the permit holder, please. >> of course. if you have a question. ms. hu. >> so when we had the approved

plans we assumed everything was a firewall. it is correct that i think within the recent investigation period leading us to this appealing we have reason to believe some of those firewalls are just plywood. >> the question is -- mr. duffy would you ask the question complete infill or partial. >> are you building a new wall from the ground to the roof that is a wall or infilling 10 by 6. >> we want a full one hour wall. we thought that it would just be the 10 by 6. i think we have to redo the wall that is potentially not a firewall. the intent is a full firewall. does that answer the question? if not i can clarify. >> that is not on the plans. it is good to know. that is another permit you need.

>> absolutely. we would file an addendum or another permit as appropriate to paysicly rectify the site position which is our intent full firewall. >> i am done. >> president honda has a question for deputy director duffy. >> i will let my fellow commissioners ask questions first. >> commissioner lazarus and commissioner chang. >> mr. duffy, under the circumstances and with everything you have heard what would be your comfort level with continuing with this permit as is. >> i am not sure you can go ahead on the current plans i am

looking at. there are details missing that are required anyway. i am not too sure. mr. sanchez did say about taking the light well. but the light well, i think that is creating an office on one floor. you are getting a new roof. if there the other work they are willing to do and address the light well under a new permit that is the best for them, the best option. as you heards the permit holders speak there is going to be another permit required. maybe that should be to construct 1r firewall and legalize deck and go through the process with that. i am not hearing that. that might be the way to go. maybe they do that on this project. >> your comments about the

details that weren't providing or missing information, should that not have been determined or observed when the permit was approved by your department? >> yes. >> i will stop there. thank you. >> commissioner chang. >> commissioner duffy, your question about the infill versus full firewall. how does that change how you would have otherwise observed this or do you just state it that you would recommend that the permit holder submit a new permit altogether in order to construct or have the entire firewall from the ground up be approved. >> if it is missing details.

now we hear somebody built the deck without a permit. there are a lot of unanswered questions about the permit. [indiscernable] the language of kitchen and bath remodel. they want to do work there. this light well area seems to be the bone of contention. you know, i don't like to be put on the spot what i would like. that is what the commission is for. i definitely think if we would do inspections on the project there would be questions about the extent of the light well, of the firewall and how it is going to be built and stuff like that. i see some structural details on the drawings but i think there is stuff missing on the drawings in that area. you know, that does happen.

in answer to commissioner lazarus' comment. the inspectors are good about i noticed you have the permit the drawings are good but no detail. you have to go back get revision permits. they are common. they are something you will see. if there is something missing on the plan the architect missed there has to be detail for firewall on the plans. >> if i may, deputy sanchez. if i understand correctly what was initially presented to the planning staff was the permit request to infill a level that was underneath the deck and

therefore because it was a small portion that had little to no impact to the adjacent property it could be approved without notification. now with the new information about the deck being permitted that is what would otherwise give the planning department pause because in order to have it fully legalized you would need both the light well and the deck to be legalized. in that case, how would the planning department typically process such a request? >> thank you, commissioner chang. you are correct. we viewed this as basically filling in a 6 by 10 opening in an existing wall. if now what we are hearing that wall itself is not properly permitted and would need to be legalized that would trigger notification. it wouldn't be full 311 owners

within 150 feet. it would be a notice to the adjacent property. we would apply residential design guidelines on the infill and generally look at setting it back at least 3 feet the wall from the shared property line to match the depth of the light well on the appellants property. there are cases where maybe we would allow them to build to the property line. for example sometimes we get a project where the maybe says we are filling in our light well, too, and they come in towing and we allow them to both remove the light wells. that is not the case here. at the end of the day if we look at legalizing that wall we will set it back three feet to match. we didn't review that. would would need to bereviewed by the staff on the permit application.

they may come to a different conclusion. i am stating what is likely to happen. that being said while there is a lot of discussion today about the illinois legality of the deck it is possible permits could be found and the deck determined to be legal or has that been ruled out as possibility? >> it would be difficult given the testimony this evening. the person is still there, they built the deck, they were a relative of the property owner at the time which i wasn't aware of. it seems that i would find it unlikely there is a permit for that. >> president honda. >> first of all, we have gone way into the weeds here and got offline. what is in front of us is a fully approved project by both parties. because of the last minute

testimony of the illinois legality of the deck which came from an individual that said he rerecalled andrew it by total recall which i don't find that to be truthful myself. one question is if the deck is illegal, then does the permit older are they required to remove it. that is one. anybody. >> president honda, you know the language that d.b.i. uses in these legalize or remove. we give them the option to remove it. >> since it was illegally put on the permit holder has the right to remove it? >> you can remove it. as property owner, as i tell

people you can do that. >> we have spent at least an hour just on the legality and illegal part of it, right? no one proved it is illegal, right? we have photographs from before indicating it was there on the last known photograph we took and prior to that. how do you tell me if it was legal on my building that it is now illegal. we don't have the original plan on file? >> no, we don't have a plan, no, no, no. high rise buildings. >> i will ask if question to the person that supplied the photographic memory drawing. are you still online, sir? >> he is here eugene anthony. >> question for you, sir. >> yes.

since you built this illegally and besides the drawing or architectural rendering you recreated yourself, what evidence do you have that this deck is illegal since you built it. do you have a picture of it or receipt for the work done at the time. >> it was built back in i am going to say. >> that wassents my question. >> i am trying to give you how far back it was to help you so you don't understand i don't have receipts for it. >> do you have any pictures? you have lived there a long time. >> 33 years. you have no picture of it in the prior condition? >> no, we didn't have cameras any more. the phone cameras. >> i am telling you we built it. >> you redrew that from photographic memory which is hard to believe. >> i also photographed it so it

was easy to do. >> that is not what you said earlier. >> you didn't ask that question. i have photographs of it. >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> i would like to start, if i may. i have gone around it probably 260 degrees pay couple times on this. i don't necessarily agree that we have spent most of the time on the deck. i think commissioner duffy or inspector duffy has raised some issues concerning the permit itself. my inclination would be to do what i think commissioner sanchez to bring everybody up to the same level suggested earlier if we can sever parts of the permit if it is clear enough to do that so that the work on the

back and kitchen could proceed and the rest would need to be subject to a new permit and potentially a new process. >> i see deputy commissioner vice president duffy's hand up. >> i am sorry. one other thing i want to alert the commissioners to as well. when you look at these things in the case i did notice the permit holders were adding the property line and new office. i don't see that process described on the plans as well. that would be something we would look for as well. i want to bring that up. the permit holder can confirm they are creating an office with new property line window. that is not on the plans either.

>> i think after commissioner lazarus' questions i would want to talk to the permit holder or architect. i believe mr. gee is online. >> i am done for the moment. >> commissioner swig. >> i would like to take the same direction as commissioner lazarus. i see no reason to hold up this permit for the other elements. i would think that it is putting the permit holder at a distinct and unnecessary advantage. hearing the permit holder tell us that they actually would like to go further than just building the 10 by 10 space and in fact, they now want to build a firewall that goes from ground level to the top, then why not

stop this process at this point. let them review that whole construction program in general. there are now questions mr. duffy brought up about a window a question by mr. sanchez as to a setback that should occur. i think we should move forward approve the permit but exorcize the portion which includes closing in the space and let them come back, refile for another permit, go through the programming and really do the detail about the infill, come up with the detail about going from ground to roof with a different

firewall, set back to make it legal and also within that i am sure the deck will come up because it will. that is kind of where i am going. >> i am similar. i would like to hear from permit holders. i see an architect are you for permit holder or appellant? >> permit holder's architect is not present. are you available? >> yes, we are available. >> the question is you see where the board is going with this. is your engineer or architect online or do you have the ability to answer and go forward. >> i can probably answer. is the question if i can clarify. if the question is whether we can provide further detail as to how the firewall would be erected at the property line?

>> we are not -- it is mentioned by two commissioners they don't want to hold up the project going forward but they are going to put an x on the firewall portion until that is straightened out. >> i do understand that. if i may offer a suggestion because we are in a pretty hostile environment and it appears that whatever we do is going to attempt to be blocked by either the tent or neighbor. that light wall area, you know, i wrote this in my brief. we have three generations of people living with us. we would like to have a way to two separate units have a way of

internally connecting between them. that was in the light wall area. >> at this point i don't think that is going to be -- you have answered my question. thank you. >> i appreciate the fact you guys are saying you are willing to let the project continue. that is very constructive. i think in terms of next step certainly you have heard us say we are willing to do the firewall. we would appreciate guidance on separating the two portions. >> that is what i was asking if you had the ability to do that. if you have a paid professional that is an architect or engineer here. that is why you said that. >> we could continue with our construction. we would not be able to wrap up our construction without having resolution on this issue. as you might appreciate it is

hard to finish the building. >> let me add something if i can, darrell. with regard to the permit holders concern there is a hostile environment. the law is the law. if you all come back with a revised plan for that section which i am advocating that we abandoned for you tonight because there are so many things up in the air that when you resubmit and resubmit a plan that is acceptable to the planning department, that is legal by review of d.b.i., then you will get your permit. if it is legal. if somebody is upset about that like your next door neighbor, they can be upset about that,

but that is why we are here. if you come up with a legal program and design that works for planning and d.b.i., you should have no worry other than the fact you will have a bad relationship and that is their choice with your neighbor to get your job done. right now there is so much hair on this dog that i see no other direction than for us to help you buy separating out the firewall portion, infill portion and letting you move on with other portions of your project to allow you to improve the building and file a separate project as you have been advised by planning and d.b.i. and move it forward legally. are we clear? >> yes, we appreciate that.

>> question. i don't know if it is from mr. duffy, is it easy enough if we were to grant appeal and condition permit on x portion being excised is that clear from the way the permit is written? >> i can answer the question. it is probably do-able but i think the architect needs to answer the question on the drawings. there is work here. what are you going to do remodel kitchen and bathroom? is that what they are going to do? we like to see plans what the work would entail because it does away with the office, the 1r window and does away with a lot of things.

>> i automatic d.b.i. would want revised -- i assume that d.b.i. would want approved plans to draw the process out. >> do we need to continue this to just take that action potentially, mr. duffy? >> i think a continuance is good in this case to give them time to rethink what happened tonight as well with the new information. maybe they can look at the the project with the architect to say what they are going ahead within this case. maybe it is an easier permit to get internally. yes, they need time to think about this. continuance is good. >> that is a different direction. that is the one you think is best suited to the issues? >> i do, yes, i wouldn't hurt here. it is up to the commissioners. the project is going the change

significantly in my opinion from what i see on the plans from what they are able to do on the inside. it could be done on special conditions permit. it is not appealable and they can do some work on the inside. >> thank you. >> permit holders i want to ask you a question. you can't speak. commissioner chang you have a question? >> yes. i have been on this deputy administrator answered and communicated and just hearing the permit holder's concern about the situation and wanted to just offer a suggestion. you said that from your perspective if this were to move

forward as a brandna permit and you apply the residential design guidelines that the light well could be matching, that staff with support 3-foot light well which would match the appellant's light well. i guess my question is would we as the board and i guess i would ask if the permit holder would be, if this would, you know, achieve some of their goals. could we as a board grant the appeal on the condition that the proposed light well be reduced or the fill in be reduced such that there is a matching light well and that the deck be legalized in is that a potential

packet that we could explore and that way still protect light and air for the appellant but help the permit holder in achieving what they desire and the other goals? >> excellent question. the board has jurisdiction over the permit. the board can take any action appropriate. we would support something along those lines. maybe it would be good to hear from appellant if that is something they would support. they would be in better condition than what is there currently. in terms i would discuss with our residential staff if we would have the 3-foot set back just at the third level or both second and third level. if it is second and third level that would be supportable by the appellant and maybe we could

have a moment where we come back at future hearing and everyone agrees and we can move on with things. >> can we hear from the permit holder? is that something to help achieve your family goals and potentially be a compromise? if you understand you wouldn't need the firewall. there would be space to fill in more of it. >> thank you, commissioner chang for that helpful suggestion. we would support what commissioner sanchez just said d third floors. our concern is frankly moving our family in as soon as possible. if we could be permitted to continue work to revise our plans to reflect 3-foot set back on second and third floors we

would support that decision. >> thank you. i think that would be my recommendation. i would seek counsel from fellow commissioners to see what their thoughts would be on that. >> the only thing i thought i heard some hesitation on the part of mr. sanchez about needing to corroborate that would work are we talking about continuance or going that direction tonight? >> i think it is up to the second and third level that would be as much as we would require in our application design guidelines. we can hear from the appellant as well. some feedback from them.

>> i will ask whether the appellant would find that to be a satisfactory condition. please answer that question. >> what do you want? [indiscernable] >> i don't know. i am thinking. issue no permit? [indiscernable] >> can he answer this tomorrow to talk about it? can we talk about it and answer it tomorrow?

>> this matter would get continued for two weeks at least. we have no meeting next week. the meeting will conclude tonight. >> they are going to move it three feet. not going to be closed. >> you know what? we are waiting at the end. [indiscernable] the answer is not right. i think. [indiscernable] do we make sure they do the right thing? >> i honestly think that the appellant is correct putting this position is awkward. two week continuance will result in an opportunity for all

parties to think, revision of plans, a clear and concise direction to make everybody comfortable or hopefully make people more comfortable. i don't believe a two week continuance and stall of this project for the permit holders will put them at a significant disadvantage or cause them harm. i suggest we take all of the advice offered, great advice by commissioner chang, the flexibility of the permit holders that we just heard and the opportunity and i hope that the appellant will be gracious to open up lines of communication between themselves and the permit holder and that two weeks you will come back and we put this to bed in the most positive of fashions.

that would be my suggestion. >> thank you, sir. >> two weeks. i want to thank commissioner chang, excellent idea. to the permit holders, sorry for the delay. there is a lot of stuff uncertain at this point. because you don't have your architect and engineer you don't have the ability to answer the questions we asked. following the direction of the board i will make a motion to continue this for two weeks. at that time three pages of briefing. >> okay. each party three minutes. do you want to specify the purpose or just to clarify for the parties the purpose of the continuance? >> i think the reason why is to clarify what has transpired. >> so all of the parties have an opportunity to contemplate commissioner chang's suggestion.

>> or come up with their own. i do advice to the apple applelantsyou have not responde. in two weeks this board will make a decision one way or the other this board will make a decision. it would be best if you sat down and hashed this out if you like each other or not. you have millions of dollars of real estate here. you need to sit down. in two weeks this board will make a decision if you like it or not. that is to both parties permit holder and applelant. >> so the parties can try to work together on a solution. >> correct. >> if i may add something that is important to address --

duffy. it would be are you department s the concerns and ensure that you provide detail on structural concerns or anything like that. this might go away there may no longer be a firewall if you proceed. i want to make sure that we are covering our bases in terms of the concerns but ensuring full permit you are talking to the planning department as necessary and things like that so we can put this to bed. >> ensuring that deputy director duffy concerns are addressed and appropriate detail is provided? >> with building and planning. decks and everything requires both departments. >> okay. we have a motion from president honda to continue this matter to may 5th so the parties can work

on a solution. they can address the concerns expressed by deputy director duffy and deputy administrator scott sanchez. commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that passes. thank you 4-0. this matter is kinked to may 5th. to the parties. the president allowed three pages of briefing. your brief is due 4:30 p.m. on the thursday prior to the hearing. i will send out an e-mail with the details tomorrow. this concludes this matter for now. >> thank you everyone. see you in two weeks. >> thank you, sir.

>> chair bustos: this is the regular meeting of the commission on community investment and infrastructure for tuesday april 20, 2021. on behalf of the commissioners, welcome members of the public who are streaming or listening to us live as well as the staff and those who are presenting for today's meeting. following the guidelines set forth by local and state officials, the members of the commission are meeting remotely to ensure the safety of everyone including members of the public. thank you all for joining us. please call the first item. >> clerk: thank you. the first order of business item 1, roll